Archive for October, 2008

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.

To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

The verdict is in on America’s 95 year fetish with gun control. The verdict is total failure. Gun control doesn’t guarantee you will not need a personal weapon to defend yourself, gun control merely guarantees you will not have a personal weapon with you when you need it. The first serious effort at mass gun control, the banning of the personal possession of a handgun, took place in New York City in 1911. The Sullivan Law made the private possession of a handgun illegal in New York City. The Sullivan Law has been copied in Washington D. C. and is now under challenge at the Supreme Court. The decision will come by June 30th, 2008.

The results of mass gun control have been predictable. Modern gun control laws have merely guaranteed that when bad things happen, as in Virginia Tech, or Northern Illinois University, or on a Long Island commuter train, the slaughter is inevitable. The reason the slaughter is inevitable is because the people being slaughtered have no personal weapons to defend themselves. And the reason this is so, the lack of personal weapons, is modern American Gun Control laws. So, the actual result of gun control laws designed to “protect” the American people has been to increase the carnage in various incidents.

One of the fatal flaws in the philosophy underlining the intellectual foundations of modern gun control is a naive misunderstanding of life, along with an even more naive belief in the ability of the “system” to protect people. The idea that all people have to do is call 911 and then wait for a magical response is beyond naive: it is foolish and deadly. This philosophy eliminates individual responsibility with the kind of deadly results we routinely see at mass shootings. Gun control laws first assume life is not dangerous and then follow this with a dogmatic belief the law enforcement system will be there. These are simply not valid intellectually because they are neither logical or true; yet, these two false premises lead repeatedly to the deaths of innocents. Just because you belief a crazed shooter will not come into your life; just because you believe that if they do a quick phone call to 911 will save you doesn’t make it so.

The reason I have spent some time on this, is simple. There are only two valid intellectual positions on gun control: you either support it, or you don’t. America has taken a somewhat strange position in between. They pretend gun control will work when it is needed; then brazenly decide it will not be needed, since it has already worked and thus is not needed. The flawed logic of gun control says it will not be needed since the man coming down the aisle on that Long Island commuter train shooting people, should not have the gun. And once he has the gun, and once he starts shooting, gun control fails. At that point, once the crazy starts shooting, the innocents merely die. There is nothing else they can do since gun control has worked by disarming them.

Again, there are only two logical intellectual responses to a situation like the Long Island commuter train shooting. The first is the one taken by the wife of one of the innocent victims. She became enraged, correctly enraged, and ran against a “pro gun” Congressman, defeated him and now is a champion of the gun control lobby. She made one of the two intellectual choices. The reason her family members died at the hands of an armed lunatic is because gun control failed. And the reason gun control failed is because we don’t have enough gun control laws. So, ergo she becomes the enraged woman taking on the crazed gun control lobby, and crazed people like me who own personal weapons and even had a concealed weapon permit at one time.

This is a valid position in my view. It is an incorrect position, an illogical one, but it is a heartfelt one and should not be treated with contempt by people like myself. She paid for her views with the blood of her husband. No one who supports the private possession of handguns and other weapons, and the Second Amendment in general, has any standing to deride her or people like her.

However, that does not mean I accept her logic, or her position on gun control. You see there are two intellectual positions on gun control related the Long Island commuter train, or Virginia Tech, or Northern Illinois University. And I take the other one. The other one being very simple. What gun control means to me is simply proper shooting technique. Based upon the Second Amendment with its armed Militia clauses, plus the historical record; the historical sayings of the Founding Fathers; finally, over 230 years of American history, there is no doubt in my mind of three things: first, absolute Constitutional protection of the private ownership of handguns, rifles and shotguns; second, the armed militia being all American citizens/people of good moral standing between the ages of 17 and 55 and third, the absolute right of concealed carry by any American Citizen of good moral standing. These are not in my view, privileges, or subject to governmental “infringement” as the Constitution says. These are rights, derived from our status as created beings as defined in the American Constitution. Like I said, this is the other intellectual position you can take on gun control.

The first position, we need more gun control is not valid. My position, the armed citizen militia member is a more accurate, logical and realistic response to life and all its dangers than modern gun control law. There are only two positions, pro or anti gun control. There are only two choices: to think life will never send a lunatic shooter your way or it might. And there are only two results if it does: to live or to die. I choose life. In the event I was on that Long Island commuter train, I would have simply pulled out my personal weapon, my concealed personal handgun and eliminated the threat, eliminated the shooter and saved lives. My position is the reason those people died is there was no one there like me to deal with the problem. This being the whole point of concealed handgun carry; this being why the system despises the armed citizen so much. It tells people they are the children of patriots, self reliant, independent and free.

You see, it is not a case of everything, can happen everywhere, all the time. To believe this is mere paranoia. It is more accurate to say, anything can happen anywhere; at anytime. And that is why the only logical and reasonable position on gun control is for the armed citizen/militia member with their concealed handgun to be available for the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if and when the situation arises. Gun control is a failure. It is long past due for a national concealed handgun carry permit. Let the crazies understand the sheep have fangs and the shooting will stop.

Enough evidence has been amassed against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that an indictment could be filed against him within days, police sources claimed on Monday. In theory, that could lead to his ouster from office even before new elections are held on February 10.

But Olmert, addressing the opening of the Knesset’s winter session on Monday, stressed that for now, he remains prime minister in every respect until a new government is formed in the wake of the elections. “There are decisions to be made and a state to be run,” he said. “The decisions will be made, and the state will be run.”

The police sources’ claim was based on depositions taken in the United States over the last few days in the double-billing case (also known as the Rishon Tours affair, named after the travel agency), in which Olmert is suspected of billing two or more nonprofit agencies for the same flights abroad and then using the extra money to finance private trips for himself and his family. The investigators are slated to return to Israel by the end of this week.
Advertisement
Police have already recommended indicting Olmert in this case, but the prosecution asked investigators to fill in a few holes in the evidence before deciding on whether to file charges. According to a police source, however, the new depositions merely confirm the earlier evidence on which police based their initial recommendation to indict.

It is not yet clear whether prosecutors will want Olmert questioned again on the case, which could delay a decision for another few weeks. Sources in the State Prosecutor’s Office said only that the office would make a final decision on the case as soon as possible.

Police have also recommended indicting Olmert in the case of American-Jewish businessman Morris Talansky, who has admitted to giving the prime minister cash-filled envelopes containing some $150,000 over a period of many years. That case hit a potential snag over the summer when Talansky refused to continue testifying lest his testimony lead to his indictment in the United States. Jerusalem District Attorney Eli Abarbanel therefore accompanied the police investigators to the U.S. last week and plans to meet this week with U.S. Justice Department officials to see whether they might be willing to give Talansky some sort of immunity.

But even if no immunity deal is reached, police sources said on Monday, they still consider it feasible to indict Olmert in this case as well.

However, regardless of whether Olmert is indicted or not, he remains a lame duck, as he officially resigned his post last month. Initially, he remained in office, while his successor as head of the Kadima party, Tzipi Livni, tried to form a new government, but on Sunday, Livni informed President Shimon Peres that she was unable to do so. Now, he remains in office as head of a transition government until new elections are held – which, Peres announced yesterday, will be on February 10.

By law, Peres could have delayed this decision for three days while he tried to find someone else who might be able to form a government. However, he informed the Knesset yesterday, after consulting with all the factions, that he sees no chance of this happening, and is therefore calling new elections immediately.

The date he chose – February 10 – is a week earlier than what had been predicted: Most pundits had expected a date of February 17. However, it is still a week later than the earliest possible legal date of February 3. If it so desires, the Knesset could still pick a different date, but most factions seem to be content with February 10.

In response to Peres’ decision, Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik plans to propose that the legislature dissolve itself at the end of next week – a mere two weeks after the start of the winter session, and a week before it is legally obligated to do so. She will consult with the heads of all the factions on this proposal today, but there seems to be broad agreement among Knesset members that the house should dissolve itself soon, to prevent a flood of populist legislation in the run-up to the election.

Even after the Knesset is dissolved, its committees will still meet as necessary, but the plenum will convene only if a special session is called.

Hillary Clinton
was right! Barack Obama is in so far over his unqualified head that he is getting caught up in his own tangled web of deceit before he can reach Election Day! And wife Michelle Obama just might be the person who ends his bid for the White House!

Had Howard Dean’s DNC not cheated Hillary Clinton out of her nomination by silencing Florida and Michigan Clinton supporters to advance Barack Obama, we might not have the biggest story in presidential political history!

Michelle Obama finally let her anger get the best of her and as she put it, “enough is enough!”

In a recent phone tirade with African Press International, Mrs. Obama launched into a rabid verbal assault upon yet another press outlet that dared to print anything the least bit investigative about her husband, presidential candidate Barack
Obama

. The conversation was apparently recorded and API promises to release that tape before the November election.

In that audio taped phone interview, Michelle Obama lit into API writers and editors. In a fit of unbridled rage, Michelle said more to disqualify her husband than all the right-wing bloggers in the universe could have come up with combined.

Here’s her statement in full context, as reported by African Press International

“African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view” -“it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API.”

Three Pending Law Suits

Democrat former Assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania Philip J. Berg filed a law suit charging that Barack Hussein Obama is not a U.S. Citizen and therefore, is not fundamentally qualified to run for the office of President.

Berg’s claim was based upon two fundamental assertions…

1. Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii
2. Obama was adopted by Indonesian step father and enrolled in Indonesian school as an Indonesian citizen who never formally changed his legal status back to American citizen

Although Michelle Obama stated, “there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president,” she might be very wrong about that arrogant assumption. It’s called the U.S. Constituion…

Berg has since recently updated the status of his case to “admission by default” after the Obama campaign filed requests for dismissal or stay until after the election, but failed to respond to the demand for admission within the thirty day time window allowed by the court.

When you refuse or fail to properly answer the demand for admissions in a timely manner, you lose by default and all charges are instantly admitted by default.

A second suit was filed in Washington State and yet a third has now been filed in Hawaii…

Michelle Provides the Answers

“He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner,” stated Michelle Obama…

Not so fast Michelle…

This statement openly confirms Berg’s second foundation for asserting that Obama is not a U.S. citizen. He gave up any U.S. citizenship he might have once held when he was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia. Obama’s Indonesian school records also confirm his status as the adopted son of Soetoro and a citizen of Indonesia.

Indonesian law did not allow dual citizenship at that time, which means in order to become a citizen of Indonesia; Barry Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) had to give up his American citizenship. This is exactly what Berg asserted in his suit, which the Obama main stream press continues to cover up today.

But Michelle gave up Much More

Accusing API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, Mrs Obama said, “African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” – “it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband.”

In other words, the press is not supposed to seek or print truth, it’s supposed to “support Africans and African-American view,” according to Mrs. Obama.

“it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband.”

Yes, that is quite strange actually, isn’t it… Why would the African Press International run allegedly untrue unflattering stories about the first African-American presidential candidate?

Equally odd is API reaction to Mrs. Obama’s phone tirade…

From the ongoing API conversation with Mrs. Obama – “This is a very interesting turn of events. The American man Dr Corsi was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi.” API

“The question now is why he was arrested and who ordered his arrest. Was Obama’s hand in this in any way? We will never know the truth but what is clear is that Dr Corsi was seen as a threat while in Kenya.” API

I understand the potential political motivations of Corsi and World Net Daily, both political opponents of Barack Obama. But how do you explain the position of API?

API Reports – “When API asked Mrs. Obama to comment on why Dr Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya’s Prime Minister Mr. Raila Odinga was involved in Dr Corsi’s arrest, she got irritated and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency.”

API Reports – “When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.”

According to API, Mrs. Obama told API that “it was unfortunate that Mr Farakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections was over.”

He should have waiting until after the election…

“Even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?” Mrs. Obama asked API towards the end of the call.

How to Make it all Well?

In closing, API reports than Mrs. Obama offered a means of reconciliation to API editors, –

“Mrs. Obama asked API to write a good story about her husband and that will earn API an invitation to the inauguration ceremony when, as she put it , her husband will be “installed” as the next President of the United States of America next year.”

Mrs. Obama does not seem to understand that we “elect” leadership in the United States. We do NOT “install” dictators who think they are above the law in some third world coup d’etat, like her husband’s cousin pulled off in Kenya…

Case Closed!

Michelle Obama not only confirmed Philip Berg’s claims than her husband is not even fundamentally eligible to run for President, she confirmed much more!

That leaves the subject of the American Press Blackout on Obama!

Barack Hussein Obama has been campaigning for president of the United States for two years now. ACORN is clearly committing voter registration fraud on his behalf. Millions in untraceable foreign campaign donations have poured in from God knows who in record setting volume.

He has a twenty five year history of hanging out with some of the world’s most corrupt and dangerous friends and for two years the American press has established a full scale media blackout on all topics relative their chosen messiah, Barack Hussein Obama…

Americans know what to do about the seemingly fraudulent Obama campaign. But who do we see at ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR and FOX about how in the hell a story of this magnitude was blacked out entirely by the so-called main stream press?

First the election… Then it’s time to deal with an anti-American press!

Thank You Michelle!

NOTE: Due to massive international interest in this story, API has established a telephone hot-line to answer related queries. To verify this story, visit API here –

As Americans render what Catholics call temporal judgment on George Bush, are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make?

This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history. Consider.

As of today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, anticipates gains of 15-30 seats. Sen. Harry Reid, whose partisanship grates even on many in his own party, may see his caucus expand to a filibuster-proof majority where he can ignore Republican dissent.

Headed for the White House is the most left-wing member of the Senate, according to the National Journal. To the vice president’s mansion is headed Joe Biden, third-most liberal as ranked by the National Journal, ahead of No. 4, Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What will this mean to America? An administration that is either at war with its base or at war with the nation.

America may desperately desire to close the book on the Bush presidency. Yet there is, as of now, no hard evidence it has embraced Obama, his ideology, or agenda. Indeed, his campaign testifies, by its policy shifts, that it is fully aware the nation is still resisting the idea of an Obama presidency.

In the later primaries, even as a panicked media were demanding that Hillary drop out of the race, she consistently routed Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania and crushed him in West Virginia and Kentucky.

By April and May, the Democratic Party was manifesting all the symptoms of buyer’s remorse over how it had voted in January and February.

Obama’s convention put him eight points up. But, as soon as America heard Sarah Palin in St. Paul, the Republicans shot up 10 points and seemed headed for victory.

What brought about the Obama-Biden resurgence was nothing Obama and Biden did, but the mid-September crash of Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, the stock market, where $4 trillion was wiped out, the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that enraged Middle America – and John McCain’s classically inept handling of the crisis.

In short, Obama has still not closed the sale. Every time America takes a second look at him, it has second thoughts, and backs away.

Even after the media have mocked and pilloried Palin and ceded Obama and Biden victory in all four debates, the nation, according to Gallup, is slowly moving back toward the Republican ticket.

Moreover, Obama knows Middle America harbors deep suspicions of him. Thus, he has jettisoned the rhetoric about the “fierce urgency of now,” and “We are the people we’ve been waiting for,” even as he has jettisoned position after position to make himself acceptable.

His “flip-flops” testify most convincingly to the fact that Obama knows that where he comes from is far outside the American mainstream. For what are flip-flops other than concessions that a position is untenable and must be abandoned?

Flip-flopping reveals the prime meridian of presidential politics. If an analyst will collate all the positions to which all the candidates move, he will find himself close to the true center of national politics.

Thus, though he is the nominee of a party that is in thrall to the environmental movement, Obama has signaled conditional support for offshore drilling and pumping out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

While holding to his pledge for a pullout of combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, he has talked of “refining” his position and of a residual U.S. force to train the Iraqi army and deal with al-Qaida.

On Afghanistan, he has called for 10,000 more troops and U.S. strikes in Pakistan to kill bin Laden, even without prior notice or the permission of the Pakistani government.

Since securing the nomination, Obama has adopted the Scalia position on the death penalty for child rape and the right to keep a handgun in the home. He voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding in Bush wiretaps. This onetime sympathizer of the Palestinians now does a passable imitation of Ariel Sharon.

No Democrat has ever come out of the far left of his party to win the presidency. McGovern, the furthest left, stayed true to his convictions and lost 49 states.

Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial-birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.
One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades’ demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse and Wright have long dreamed of?

Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming.
****************************************************

Bush’s Martial Law Plan Is So Shocking, Even Congress Can’t See it
Executive über alles as member of Homeland Security Committee barred from viewing post-terror attack provisions

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, July 23, 2007

President Bush’s post-terror attack martial law plan is so shocking that even sitting members of Congress and Homeland Security officials are barred from viewing it, another example of executive über alles and a chilling portent of what is to come as constant reminders of the inevitability of terror attacks reverberate.
Congressman Peter DeFazio (D – OR) was asked by his constituents to see what was contained within the classified portion of the White House’s plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.
Since DeFazio also sits on the Homeland Security Committee and has clearance to view classified material, the request would have appeared to be routine, but the Congressman was unceremoniously denied all access to view the documents, and the White House wouldn’t even give an excuse as to why he was barred.

“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio told the Oregonian on Friday.

“We’re talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America,” DeFazio says. “I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee.”
“Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right,” DeFazio concluded.
The article also quotes Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who told the paper he “cannot think of one good reason” to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

“I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House,” Ornstein said.

The only plausible reason DeFazio was barred access to the documents is that the plans for a post-terror attack continuity of government scenario are so abhorrent that to reveal their true nature would cause a public outcry and lead to a major repeal of what is contained in the documents.

What we already about Bush’s recent spate of executive orders, and in particular PDD 51, is bad enough – the provisions outline preparations for the implementation of open martial law in the event of a declared national emergency.
New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

It is important to understand that, although these powers have been on the books for previous presidents, Bush is the first to openly brag of the fact that he will utilize them and officially become the supreme emperor of the United States in the aftermath of a catastrophe that the government itself has said will happen on innumerable occasions.

According to columnist and author Jerome Corsi, the power grab assures that “The president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.”

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
—————————————————————————————————————

Also in May, it was reported that a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named “The Day After,” which would effectively end civil liberties and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city.

Last year we also exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.

The documents that Congressman DeFazio was blocked from seeing likely interlock with both these programs and detail the overarching agenda to effectively nullify what’s left of the U.S. Constitution and firmly ensconce George W. Bush as a supreme dictator.

Only by putting enough pressure on the media and in turn the White House to be transparent about what the secret martial law provisions are can we lead an effort to repeal them before the next terror attack, whether real or manufactured, takes place.

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are drawing up plans to toughen oversight of the financial industry and considering introducing another economic-stimulus package in the wake of the government’s decision to buy stakes in major U.S. banks.
[Nancy Pelosi]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is mulling recommendations from several economists that Congress act on an economic-recovery package that would cost taxpayers $300 billion, according to congressional aides, equivalent to about 2% of the country’s gross domestic product.

The California Democrat envisions a bill that would include new spending on highways and bridges, extended benefits to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped states and a tax cut, congressional aides said. She has asked several House committees to examine details of a possible plan. And as part of the effort, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is expected to testify next week before the House Budget Committee on the state of the economy. Ms. Pelosi is expected to call lawmakers back to Washington in late November to take up the issue.

With the Nov. 4 election less than three weeks away, lawmakers are eager to respond to voter concerns about the economy. The chances of a new stimulus package being enacted are likely to depend on what happens in the election and what happens to the economy. The White House and its Republican allies in Congress so far have resisted a spending-focused stimulus package.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) described the latest Democratic package as a “big government boondoggle.”

Democratic lawmakers are also seeking to rewrite the rules on how housing purchases are financed, and to redefine the roles of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The lawmakers are also looking to tighten regulation of financial services, with hedge funds, private-equity funds and exotic financial instruments such as credit-default swaps likely to come under greater federal scrutiny.

“There is no question in my mind that we must adopt a stronger system of regulation and oversight for these swaps and derivatives and everything else that’s out there,” Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin said on Tuesday. “We’ve got to have regulations to protect our economy from these excesses.”

The Iowa Democrat’s committee oversees commodity trading.

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank said the Bush administration’s decision to invest directly in banks is a turning point in the debate over regulation. “It has definitely changed Washington, very dramatically,” the Massachusetts Democrat said. “Two years ago, the prevailing opinion was [that] we needed to deregulate further. Now, the argument is [over] what kind of new regulation we need.”

Rep. Frank plans to convene a hearing next week to explore how to strengthen oversight of financial markets. Committee aides are expected to focus on developing legislative recommendations the rest of the year; that would set the stage for action on a sweeping bill early in 2009, when the new Congress is seated.

“This is equivalent to what FDR had to do…to save capitalism from its own excesses,” Rep. Frank said, referring to measures taken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to calm markets and protect investors during the Great Depression.

Rep. Frank predicted that any legislation aimed at toughening oversight would face little opposition in Congress, especially after lawmakers have effectively exposed taxpayers to hundreds of billions of dollars in potential new liabilities. “We’re beyond the point where anybody will stand up and try to block this,” he said.

Lawmakers have reacted cautiously to the Bush administration’s plan to buy stakes in nine major banks. Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) said the actions by the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. “will help us avoid what could potentially be a catastrophic economic meltdown.”

Speaker Pelosi portrayed the coordinated efforts as “steps in the right direction that could help to restore confidence in our financial markets.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on THIS IS YOUR FUTURE – GET USED TO IT

Change is coming, yes—but not the kind the candidates think. By Joel Hilliker

“Let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first-country-second Washington crowd: Change is coming!” John McCain promised in his speech at the Republican convention in September. He used the word 10 times. “We need to change the way government does almost everything,” he said. “We’re going to … make this government start working for you again, and get this country back on the road to prosperity and peace.”

Barack Obama, his opponent, has been promising change from the beginning of his campaign. “It’s time for [Republicans] to own their failure. It’s time for us to change America,” he said—one of his 16 mentions of the word during his own convention speech. “And that’s why I’m running for president of the United States.”

It is the perennial promise of politics. Something’s wrong with the way things are. We’re going to get in there and shake things up. Get this country moving again. It is the most oft-repeated theme of the candidate asking for votes. As soon as I’m in power, we’ll set things right. It is the essence of the nominees’ pitch: that utopia is just a vote away. We will sweep out the corruption and bring a new era of prosperity and peace. This time, it’s really going to change!

The promise of change has, in fact, motivated most every putsch and coup and revolution in history. Think beyond America’s borders for a moment. Change was the promise Pervez Musharraf once offered Pakistan. It was the promise that inspired Palestinians to vote Hamas into power in 2006. It was the promise of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Change was the promise of Castro’s Cuban revolution, and of similar events throughout South America. It was the promise of most of the big men presiding over their bits of the African continent. Even Adolf Hitler campaigned to a disgruntled electorate on a promise to solve his nation’s economic woes. No leader ever sets out to create a legacy of same-old, status-quo failure.

Still, the fact remains that not one of the primary forms of government in human history—monarchy, democracy, republic, oligarchy, despotism, tyranny—nor system of political economy, from capitalism to communism—has brought about and sustained any real semblance of peace, prosperity and happiness for the masses. Not one has truly made good on its promise. All have been plagued by failure and corruption.

Among the innumerable company of history’s experiments in governance, the republic of the United States stands as the greatest. And still we see an election whose overarching theme is aimed at addressing broad discontent and anxiety among the electorate with the promise of change.

With thousands of years of such failure to look upon, why then do we cling to our conviction that a solution is almost in sight? The grim reality remains as the Prophet Isaiah described it nearly three millennia ago: “[W]e wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.”

Promises, Promises

Like every presidential aspirant, John McCain is making some big promises. He has pledged, among many other things, that if elected he will combat hunger nationwide, save the Everglades, work to rid Africa of malaria, and win the war in Iraq. He will end dependence on Middle Eastern oil, capture Osama bin Laden, expand the military, and ensure the nation has high-quality intelligence. He promises to restore people’s trust in the government, inspire greater public service in Americans, help smokers quit, protect doctors from lawsuits, ensure that students have access to excellent schools, secure America’s borders, fix fema, train workers for the new economy, and make U.S. employees more globally competitive. He also plans to balance the budget, stop wasteful government spending, rescue Medicare, and save Social Security without raising taxes. And this is just the short list.

Wouldn’t it be remarkable to see a president achieve all that? But wait. As far-reaching as these promises are, they don’t even touch those of his opponent.

Obama has promised, among many other things, that if America elects him, he will safeguard all nuclear material worldwide within his first term, stop new nuclear weapons development, finish the fight in Afghanistan, crack down on al Qaeda in Pakistan, end the Darfur genocide, and create a Palestinian state that exists with Israel “side by side in peace and security.” He aims to cut the world’s extreme poverty in half and boost international aid. He will help revitalize inner cities, overhaul immigration laws, outlaw discrimination against transsexuals, ban racial profiling, make the criminal justice system into one that will inspire every American’s trust and confidence, and even attract more doctors to rural areas. He will provide free college education for those who want to become teachers, supply health care and broadband Internet access for every American, preserve Social Security, rebuild aging infrastructure, and build a 21st-century Veterans Affairs hospital—all while slashing federal waste and cutting taxes for 95 percent of working families. He will “make sure our economy is working for everybody,” and generate “nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy.” He pledges to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, to reduce electricity demand even as the population increases, to “end the age of oil,” and to “work to solve this energy crisis once and for all.” Again, this is just cherry-picking from a much larger list of his campaign pledges.

It gives you a good idea of how socialistic the nation is becoming: The only serious contenders for its highest office are seducing voters with the lure of more government programs, more entitlements, and more regulations and laws.

But how much do Americans believe either of these men could actually keep these promises? Hard to say. Generally, politicians aren’t held too hard to account for their soaring campaign rhetoric.

It’s a good thing, too, because those promises are about to be absolutely shredded.

The Real Issues

For one, the system itself is designed to limit a president and prevent executive overreach. This alone would prevent most of those promises from ever being fulfilled.

But the reason those promises of change are going to meet the same fate they always have has more to do with priorities. Already, the concerns that many of those promises address are being overtaken by far more pressing, even existential concerns.

Right now, the American economy is embroiled in what Alan Greenspan has called a “once in a century” crisis. The economic damage is irreparably decimating America’s already shaky standing as global financial leader.

The next American president will face a drastically altered economic landscape. His term could well be consumed with trying to survive the vortex of related trends sucking the economy down: sagging stock market, falling home prices, mounting job losses, failing corporations. The bounce in the dollar—caused not by a stronger U.S. but by a weakened global economy—will prove temporary; inflation will increase; consumer spending will slump. To finance his grand plans, the next president will need cash. But he will face increasingly miserly foreign lenders; as America’s credit risk grows, their premiums will go up. Higher interest rates will create additional problems: less corporate spending, fewer home buyers, anemic consumerism. The president’s other option—printing money—will further hollow out the dollar’s value. He will find it impossible to spend the nation out of recession simply because of its already historic indebtedness.

It is difficult to calculate the pressures these economic woes will put on the already strained social integrity of this nation. The next president will face far more significant social problems than his predecessor did. Unemployment, inflation, recession, food shortages—these will find corollaries in the fracturing of families and neighborhoods, the increase in substance abuse, domestic violence and urban crime. Consider as well the economy’s unprecedented dependence on alien workers, and how the levels of immigration have weakened social cohesion and created pockets of hostile foreigners within the nation. Racial tensions are rising and could well be compounded by the outcome of this election, regardless of who wins.

And as much as the next president would like to restore America’s former prestige in industry, science and technology, he will not be able to do so by pledging additional money—if it could be found—to attract better teachers and improve education. The younger generations are suffering measurable deficits in emotional maturity, intellectual capacity, work ethic, self-sacrifice, ambition and will. These crippling problems have a number of causes that America has rendered itself incapable of confronting, including societal moral decline, sloth, and family breakdown. On top of these is the sense of entitlement and complacency produced by socialistic governmental programs—a malaise that cannot be remedied by more government programs.

Compounding these problems, the next president will find himself struggling with the irrefutable uptick in environmental disasters. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency statistics, Ronald Reagan saw an average of 23 major disaster declarations each year he was president. His successor saw 39 each year. Bill Clinton dealt with an average of over 47. President Bush has seen 54 annually. Hurricanes Gustav and Ike brought this year’s total, only halfway into September, to 56. That’s a new disaster requiring governmental intervention every 4.6 days. The drain on federal resources is growing greater all the time. And those figures don’t even include the far-reaching drought that, along with widespread flooding, has ravaged food production in the U.S.

The presidential candidates, though they may differ with some of these specifics, nevertheless accept the general premise that the nation’s problems are worse than ever. In response, they each say, That makes it all the more important that you vote for me. It’s because of all those troubles that this is, in fact, the most important election of our lifetime. I’m the only man who can change things!

But there is a darker reality that both candidates and their supporters, caught up in the commotion of the campaign, are ignoring.

The reality is that the next president will be taking the helm of a cursed nation.

The United States in Prophecy

You can already see most of the problems described above besieging America. People want to believe that a new president will reverse the trends. If he doesn’t, it seems clear that he will be overwhelmed by problems.

But when you look at what the Bible prophesies for America in the near term, the true horror of the picture emerges.

The scenario we’ve already looked at is forecasted in the Bible to continue—and get far worse. Prophecy shows that the economic, moral and familial failures will keep trending downward. The weather disasters will grow more frequent and more catastrophic. The pressures on food supplies will intensify. Immigration- and race-related hostilities will heat up and explode into violence. The national loss of vigor and willpower will become even more obvious. Not only that, these issues will be compounded by still more crushing crises, including devastating disease epidemics, more lethal terrorist attacks, pestilence and famine.

In addition, God prophesied the loss within America of strong, masculine leaders to shepherd the nation through such tribulations (Isaiah 3:1-4). The resulting national weakness and wreckage will leave America imminently vulnerable to the prophesied nuclear attacks by a foreign nation that leave cities without an inhabitant (Jeremiah 4:7)—and the subsequent national captivity. For a thorough scriptural study of how these prophecies apply to the United States, and to see the ultimately inspiring reason for which God is bringing them to pass, request a free copy of Herbert W. Armstong’s book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

This is how the Bible describes America’s coming days. These are the curses progressively befalling this nation that has turned itself so completely away from the God who gave it such abundant blessings.

This sequence of curses is already beginning to ravage the United States at an accelerating tempo. Exactly how much will occur during the next presidential term is not certain. What is certain, however, is that the curses will not lighten up. They will only grow worse.

The only question is how quickly.

But thankfully, that is not the end of the story.

As surely as the Bible prophesies of America’s demise, it foretells of its ultimate replacement by a righteous government that will—at long last—fulfill that perennial promise of politics. Biblical prophecy contains the advance warning to all the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first-country-second governments of this weary Earth: Change is coming.

Here is the latest from Free Republic, whose information came from the blog Texas Darlin’ which is password protected.

Since the story broke late Saturday that Barack Obama’s real Birth Certificate, now in Republican hands, has the name Barry Soetoro and not Barack Obama, as we predicted a couple of weeks ago, I notice that many people are still confused about the implications of dual citizenship for Obama.

The matter is somewhat complex, so I’ve decided to try to provide a summary, with the help of resident expert ”Judah Benjamin.”

Indonesian Connection

Soetoro is the name on Obama’s Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father. His original BC, which we assume was issued for Barack Hussein Obama at birth, would have been sealed at the time of the adoption.

Barry Soetoro probably acquired Indonesian citizenship in approximately 1965-1966, and may still hold it. He possibly changed his legal name back to Barack Hussein Obama as an older child, teenager, or adult, possibly never did — but even if he did, this procedure would not result in a change to the BC. (If he never legally changed his name back, I imagine his current name on the Presidential ballot would be invalid.)

The Birth Certificate published by Obama on his campaign website (still there, by the way) and distributed to the media was forged because the real BC on file is in the name Soetoro, an identity he apparently wanted to hide from the American people.

I am getting reports from different sources that Obama traveled to Pakistan in ‘81 with an Indonesian passport.

Prior to 2007 (and possibly earlier), Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship, his US citizenship could be challenged.

I suspect that Obama may have dumped his Indonesian citizenship at some point along the way, to advance his political career. But I would not be shocked if he still holds it. This question, however, should not overshadow the serious problem of hiding his Indonesian identity from the electorate.

Kenyan Citizenship

I personally doubt that Obama holds Kenyan citizenship. If he did, he could be stripped of his US citizenship under US law.

Barack Hussein Obama probably was a citizen of the British Crown (first two years of his life) and, effective 1963, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of his father’s nationality.

Under the Constitution of Kenya, he would have automatically forfeited his citizenship at the age of 21 unless he affirmatively “claimed” it. If he took some action to keep his citizenship, that’s a big problem because 1) Kenya prohibits dual citizenship and 2) the US does not recognize dual citizenship with Kenya. Further under the Kenyan Constitution, given his circumstances, he could only have kept Kenyan Citizenship, if he had it, by means of a Ministerial, Prime Ministerial, or Presidential Decree. (Of course, Raila Odinga is Prime Minister of Kenya and Odinga’s father, Oginga Odinga, was Vice President of Kenya and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a close ally of the older Odinga.)

If Obama retained his Kenyan citizenship and helped campaign for his cousin Odinga, that is especially problematic under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the relevant language of which is:

a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years…

Again, I don’t think that Obama has Kenyan citizenship. I think that the Rocky Mountain report and Andy Martin’s work are poorly sourced on this point. I sometimes get the impression that Kenya serves as a diversion from the REAL PROBLEM, which is his Indonesian connection. It would be shocking to get actual confirmation of current Kenyan citizenship.

Electability & Eligibility Issues

These revelations raise several troubling issues for Obama’s electability and eligibility.

Foremost, there is the concerted attempt to cover up his Indonesian background and dual citizenship/identity from the electorate.

Secondly, there is a potential Constitutional problem with a POTUS having held dual citizenship, and Obama knows it; thus, the deception.

The “natural-born” clause of Article II is commonly understood to relate to the place of birth, but more accurately relates to loyalty to country as Commander in Chief. That was the original intent of the founding fathers. In McCain’s case, there is no question because of his circumstances (born on military base to 2 US citizens, later joined the military, never had anything to do with Panama, etc.). In Obama’s case, it’s not nearly so clear, especially given his travels, relatives, and associations in some of these other countries.

In my mind, however, the biggest problem is that Sen. Obama has intentionally concealed his background, Indonesian identity, citizenship, and the fact that he was at one time Muslim.

What else is he hiding? Credit must be given to Judah Benjamin, historian and former journalist, who has provided ground-breaking research on the factual and legal issues related to Obama’s Indonesian connection and dual citizenship; to Polarik for breaking the story of the COLB forgery; to Techdude for his analysis of the COLB forgery; to Dr. Kate for her tireless research efforts; to Michele, for bringing us a new COLB; to the No Quarter team for endless support; and to all the other writers and readers dedicated to the truth.

Via Instapundit, we find that once again dead people are somehow getting the opportunity to vote in Houston, Texas.

Linda Kay Hill, a homemaker and Louisiana native, died Aug. 2, 2006, of a heart attack, her husband recalled, and is buried at Houston Memorial Gardens in Pearland. But Harris County voter records indicate she –- or someone using her identity –- cast a ballot in the November election that year. Linda Hill of Woodwick Street voted in person on Election Day, records show.

She is among the more than 4,000 people whose names are listed both on Harris County’s voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis has found.

And dozens of those people, like Linda Hill, have apparently cast ballots from beyond the grave, records since 2004 show. One expert says the number of deceased names used to cast ballots may be higher than what Texas Watchdog’s analysis found.

Instances of dead voters’ names being used to cast ballots were most frequent in three elections, the November 2004 general election, the November 2006 general election and the March 2008 Democratic primary, the analysis found.

Less than a month away from an election to decide the highest office in the land, some advocates worry that such errors in the voter records open the door for fraud, compromise the integrity of results and lessen voter confidence in the system.

How exactly is that possible? It strains credulity that the New York Times and Washington Post and other media outlets minimize the seriousness of the issue of election fraud and that it is not only widespread, but that it undermines our very right to vote. These aren’t isolated cases, as we’ve seen reports of dead people voting in elections every year.

The sad fact is that too many jurisdictions around the country are doing an extremely poor job of clearing the rolls of dead voters and those who are ineligible to vote. Voter fraud is rampant in some areas, and the situation in Houston is likely to be repeated elsewhere in the country. We’ve already seen that problem here in New Jersey in the past, and I expect it to be repeated here again in 2008.

Every time someone casts one of these fraudulent ballots it undermines your legitimate right to vote. However, the New York Times or other media outlets will report that efforts to ensure that your legitimate right to vote is protected by culling voter rolls of those who should not be on them is somehow restricting your right to vote.

UPDATE:
We saw dead voting, along with felons who were not entitled to vote, in Washington’s disputed elections in 2004. The same questions are being asked now as some who are underage are registering to vote:

Questions keep coming up about voter registration practices in Washington state, but not at the scale seen after the disputed governor’s race in 2004.

At that time, 1,678 illegal votes cast by felon, deceased and other ineligible voters came into play in a razor-close election decided ultimately by a judge.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation said Thursday in Olympia it recently found a half-dozen underage voters’ registrations listed as “active” in Washington’s statewide voter database – the result of a policy that lets 17-year-olds register early, then be activated at the first election they are eligible.

State election officials said there is no cause to worry – that the names had been flagged, and the state’s 39 county elections shops are poised to catch the ineligible voters, keeping them from getting a ballot.

Democrats, meanwhile, are claiming that the GOP is trying to suppress minority votes. These are roughly the same arguments made against the banking and financial institutions that were pressured into lowering their guard against subprime borrowing. It’s no wonder the arguments are made this way – they work, and it’s often the same organizations making them: ACORN.
Labels: 2008 elections, acorn, election fraud, Houston

Posted by lawhawk

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on DEAD PEOPLE VOTING IN HOUSTON, TEXAS

America has become a pretty discouraging place. Americans, for the most part, will never know what happened to them, because they no longer have a free and responsible press.

The 20th century proves that the market is likely to know better than a central planning bureau. It was Soviet Communism that collapsed, not American capitalism. However, the market has to be protected from greed. It was greed, not the market that was unleashed by deregulation during the Clinton and George W Bush regimes.

The Paulson bailout saves his firm, Goldman Sachs. The Paulson bailout transfers the troubled financial instruments that the financial sector created from the books of the financial sector to the books of the taxpayers at the US Treasury.

This is all the bailout does. It rescues the guilty.

The Paulson bailout does not address the problem, which is the defaulting home mortgages.

The defaults will continue, because the economy is sinking into recession. Homeowners are losing their jobs, and homeowners are being hit with rising mortgage payments resulting from adjustable rate mortgages and escalator interest rate clauses in their mortgages that make homeowners unable to service their debt.

Shifting the troubled assets from the financial sectors’ books to the taxpayers’ books absolves the people who caused the problem from responsibility. As the economy declines and mortgage default rates rise, the US Treasury and the American taxpayers could end up with a $700 billion loss.

Since Paulson’s bailout of his firm and his financial friends does nothing to lessen the default rate on mortgages, how will the bailout play out?

If the $700 billion bailout is based on an estimate of the current amount of bad mortgages, as the recession deepens and Americans lose their jobs, the default rate will rise. The $700 billion might not suffice. The Treasury will have to go hat in hand to its foreign creditors for more loans.

As the US Treasury has not got $7, much less $700 billion, it must borrow the bailout money from foreign creditors, already overloaded with US paper. At what point do America’s foreign bankers decide that the additions to US debt exceed what can be repaid?

This question was ignored by the bailout. There were no hearings. No one consulted China, America’s principal banker, or the Japanese, or the OPEC sovereign wealth funds, or Europe.

Does the world have a blank check for America’s mistakes?

This is the same world that is faced with American demands that countries support with money and lives America’s quest for world hegemony. Europeans are dying in Afghanistan for American hegemony. Do Europeans want their banks, which hold US dollars as their reserves, to fail so that Paulson can bail out his company and his friends?

The US dollar is the world’s reserve currency. It comprises the reserves of foreign central banks. Bush’s wars and economic policies are destroying the basis of the US dollar as reserve currency. The day the dollar loses its reserve currency role, the US government cannot pay its bills in its own currency. The result will be a dramatic reduction in US living standards.

Currently Treasuries are boosted by the habitual “flight to quality,” but as Treasury debt deepens, will investors still see quality? At what point do America’s foreign creditors cease to lend? That is the point at which American power ends. It might be close at hand.

The Paulson bailout is predicated on cleaning up financial institutions’ balance sheets and restoring the flow of credit. The assumption is that once lending resumes, the economy will pick up.

This assumption is problematic. The expansion of consumer debt, which kept the economy going in the 21st century, has reached its limit. There are no more credit cards to max out, and no more home equity to refinance and spend. The Paulson bailout might restore trust among financial institutions and enable them to lend to one another, but it doesn’t provide a jolt to consumer demand.

Moreover, there may be more shoes to drop. Credit card debt could be the next to threaten balance sheets of financial institutions. Apparently, credit card debt has been securitized and sold as well, and not all of the debt is good. In addition, the leasing programs of the car manufacturers have turned sour. As a result of high gasoline prices and absence of growth in take-home pay, the residual values of big trucks and SUVs are less than the leasing programs estimated them to be, thus creating more financial problems. Car manufacturers are canceling their leasing programs, and this will further cut into sales.

According to statistician John Williams, who measures inflation, unemployment, and GDP according to the methodology used prior to the Clinton regime’s corruption of these measures, the US unemployment rate is currently at 14.7% and the inflation rate is 13.2 percent. Consequently, real US GDP growth in the 21st century has been negative.

This is not a picture of an economy that a bailout of financial institution balance sheets will revive. As the Paulson bailout does not address the mortgage problem per se, defaults and foreclosures are likely to rise, thus undermining the Treasury’s estimate that 90 percent of the mortgages backing the troubled instruments are good.

Moreover, one consequence of the ongoing financial crisis is financial concentration. It is not inconceivable that the US will end up with four giant banks: J.P. Morgan Chase, Citicorp, Bank of America, and Wachovia Wells Fargo. If defaulting credit card debt then assaults these banks’ balance sheets, who is there to take them over? Would the Treasury be able to borrow the money for another Paulson bailout?

An alternative to refinancing troubled mortgages would be to attempt to separate the bad mortgages from the good ones and revalue the mortgage-backed securities accordingly. If there are no further defaults, this approach would not require massive write-offs that threaten the solvency of financial institutions. However, if defaults continue, write-downs would be an ongoing enterprise.

Clearly, all Secretary Paulson thought about was getting troubled assets off the books of financial institutions.

The same reckless leadership that gave us expensive wars based on false premises has now concocted an expensive bailout that does not address the problem, which will fester and become worse.